"Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠)" <g...@clacke.user.lysator.liu.se> skribis:
> On Jul 8, 2015 2:57 PM, "Ludovic Courtès" <l...@gnu.org> wrote: >> Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wur...@mdc-berlin.de> skribis: > >> > Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add python-rpy2. >> > >> > * gnu/packages/python.scm (python-rpy2, python2-rpy2): New variables. > >> > + (license gpl2+))) >> >> R being GPLv3+, this should be the same. > > I understand the reasoning that a package is more user-oriented than > developer-oriented and should reflect the license of the whole, but there's > an argument for reflecting the original license as well. Has this been > discussed? This has been mentioned in past reviews. Basically the intent is for ‘license’ to reflect the license of the whole, but we often end up leaving a comment in cases where there’s some ambiguity. I think it’s hard to do better without maintaining ‘copyright’ files à la Debian. Ludo’.
